| Sky Render said: You're not making a very good image for yourself in this thread at all, Squilliam. Responding to a well-worded and carefully considered explanation of what true genius entails, as well as the pitfalls of relying on knowledge over clarity, with nothing more than "Bull..." suggests only that you have no alternative explanation to offer. Indeed, it suggests that you didn't even read what was written. |
Ok then, "your assertion fails because its based on rhetoric"
There, 7 words.
"Some believe genius is being able to see what others do not. But true genius is being able to explain that which others don't see to them in a way that they understand and that doesn't offend them. Malstrom is decidedly a genius in that regard, which is more than I can say for the sorts who say "you're wrong", rant on about theories and rules, utilize statistics in place of qualitative arguments, and then simply refuse to clarify in a way that uninformed individuals on the subject would understand.
Some hide behind statistics, theories, and equations to conceal their actual capabilities. They turn to their knowledge to make them look smart in the presence of the uninformed, and it's all about them. But some of us opt to go the other way, and reveal what we know to the world so others can appreciate it, admitting our shortcomings as we go and making sure that our listeners understand what we say and that they actually care. To those of us like that, it's not about what we know, it's about what our listeners want to know"
The bolded - Your claim that Malstrom is a genius is not supported by the underlined rhetoric.
Tease.
